Iowa Workers' Compensation

  ABF Freight System Inc. v. Hilliard , No. 21-0855 (Iowa App. Jan. 27, 2022) Claimant suffered a neck injury in 2016 and was awarded a 30% industrial disability.  He later filed a request for review-reopening and was awarded an additional 20% by the deputy and commissioner.  This finding was affirmed by the district court. On appeal, the employer argued that there had been no changes in claimant’s physical condition and posited that claimant’s physician had not placed him on restrictions.  The court finds that the decision of the agency finding that there had been a change in physical condition was supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, claimant’s physician opined that claimant’s condition had declined since his surgery and that he had developed chronic, debilitating pain.  The doctor also explained that he did not impose restrictions because they “don’t work . . . In general, I don’t impose them if - unless absolutely necessary.”  The court find...

Mercy Medical Center v. Lund , No. 21-0523 (Iowa App. Jan. 12, 2022) Claimant worked at a job at Mercy Medical Center that required assembling materials for surgery, which required heavy work exerting up to 65 pounds of push/pull force and the lifting of up to 50 pounds sometimes and 40 pounds frequently.  While lifting trays over her head, she felt pain in the right side of her neck and both shoulders felt tight and sore.  She was diagnosed with bilateral shoulder impingement by Dr. Harbach.  His notes indicated that claimant hurt after performing all of her work duties.  Claimant was also seen by an ARNP who noted that claimant was injured lifting surgical pans.  Dr. Aviles diagnosed a full thickness rotator cuff tear and recommended surgery.  He later indicated that he did not believe the rotator cuff tear resulted from work.  Further medical care from the employer was denied. Dr. Davick saw claimant and provided treatment.  Claimant's counsel ...

  Cochran v. Quest Liner, Inc. , No. 21-0288 (Iowa App. Jan. 12, 2022) Claimant suffered an injury at work and was paid healing period benefits for a time.  Defendants sent claimant a notice that healing period benefits would be ended as required by section 86.13.  Claimant alleged that he was entitled to additional healing period benefits and the arbitration decision found that claimant was entitled to continuing healing period benefits.  Penalty benefits were denied as the commissioner indicated it was reasonably debatable whether claimant was entitled to continuing benefits. Claimant appealed, arguing that defendants failed to obtain an impairment rating or do any further investigation to determine if he was entitled to further benefits after their authorized treating physician placed him at MMI.  On appeal, the court finds that the issue raised implicates the application of law to fact standard of review and that the decision will only be overturned if the a...

  Taylor v. Iowa State University Extension , No. 20-1397 (Iowa App. Jan. 12, 2022) Claimant was in a car accident as she was heading back to her office after giving a presentation.  She informed an office assistant of the accident and sought treatment from a chiropractor the next day.  When she sought treatment, she did not indicate her injuries were related to work.  Claimant testified that she spoke with her supervisor about the accident and the supervisor indicated the injuries were not work-related.  The supervisor testified she never told claimant the injuries were not work-related.  Claimant later told the employer her accident was work related after consulting an attorney some 22 months after the accident.  The agency concluded that claimant had not provided notice of the injury within 90 days of the incident and the case was dismissed under section 85.23. As an initial matter, the court addressed a motion to strike claimant's reply brief becau...

  2022 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions The following is a compilation of workers' compensation appeal decisions decided in 2022, arranged by month. December 2022 Ernster v. SIF , No. 19003583.01 (App. Dec. 29, 2022) - Claimant was found not to be a credible witness at the arbitration level and benefits were denied in this SIF only action.  Claimant had settled the underlying action with the employer on an agreement for settlement. The deputy concluded that claimant had not demonstrated a second qualifying loss to her left leg and thus no SIF benefits were awarded (Fitch).  The commissioner affirms, noting that the deputy is to be given deference in the credibility determination. 4 months from arbitration to appeal decision.   Hayes v. Georgia Pacific Corp. , No. 5067990.02 (App. Dec. 29, 2022) - In this review-reopening petition, claimant sought an increase in the 25% industrial disability previously awarded for a low back injury.  The deputy found t...